Should women have their heads covered in worship?

[satz]

Given the use of "praying" and "prophesying" in chapter 14, I think we are bound to take these actions as expressions of charismatic gifts in the assembly. These certainly bear an analogy to ordinary acts of worship, but in the context the apostle's description of what was happening in Corinth must have been made worse by the fact that these women were actually presuming to speak on behalf of God.

I don’t understand why you say “presuming to speak on behalf of God”. I believe the bible presents that during NT times there were indeed genuine female prophetesses who did indeed speak on behalf of God via inspiration (Acts 2:16-18, Acts 21:9, Luke 2:36-38). I don’t see a reason to assume that Paul was not addressing a legitimate use of the spiritual gift.

Paul does not link headship with headcovering per se, he links headship with headcovering while praying or prophesying.

If he does this specifically, then a dilemma is created, in that he would be specifically authorising the woman to pray and prophesy when it is his intention to forbid her to speak at all. Given his eventual prohibition it is more natural to take his words as an example of a lack of decorum in public rather than the specific action to which he is confining his instructions.

I would respectfully submit that this reading does cause far greater strain to the text than the one I suggest. I think it can be established that Paul’s purpose in 1 Cor 11 it to address the issue of headcoverings, not the propriety of prophesying (v 6, 10). As such, why would Paul confuse his audience by giving the example of headcovering while performing a prohibited activity? It would serve only to confuse because readers would not know which activity was wrong – being uncovered or prophesying.


I do not believe any dilemma or contradiction is created by the reading I have suggested (i.e. Paul is regulating the use of inspired prophecy by women) because I do not believe Paul does “forbid her to speak at all”. Paul’s words in 1 Cor 14:34 should be understood as forbidding not all speech, but a specific kind of speech that would allow exceptions.

1) Even the “strictest” reformed churches I know allow women to sing during the assembly in accordance with Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, so that already shows in practice they do not understand “keep silence in the churches” as an absolute command with no exceptions.

2) Paul already used the phase “keep silence in the church” in 1 Cor 14:28 with respect to a man with the gift of tongues but no interpreter. Was Paul forbidding that man to even open his mouth when there was no interpreter? Or was Paul forbidding a particular kind of speech – the use of his gift of tongues?. If the man did not use is gift of tongues surely he would have been free to speak (as was appropriate for his office).

So by the bible’s own definition, the phase “keep silence” in 1 Cor 14 is not meant to be understood in an absolute way.

3) If what is under consideration here is inspired prophecy, - and yourself have said that in the context of 1 Corinthians “prayer and prophecy” must be some form of charismatic gift- how can it be an appropriate reply to an inspired prophetess to tell her to “ask her husband at home”? You might tell her that now is not the time to exercise her gift, but it makes no sense to tell her to ask her husband. Again, inspired prophecy is not the kind of speech Paul is seeking to forbid.

4) Paul’s command in 1 Cor 14:34 says “as also saith the Law”. So the NT regulation is similar to that in the OT. And the OT law itself allowed for female prophetesses to teach and have authority in Israel, be it Miriam, Deborah, Huldah or Anna.


I do see enough evidence that 1 Cor 14:34 is not meant to be absolute, such that I think 1 Cor 11 can be seen as Paul making an exception for inspired prophetesses. He just required them to wear a covering as a sign of their submission to the normal order.

 

[SueS]

Your argument that the head covering is mainly propounded by legalistic groups such as the Mennonites and Amish fails to take this historical data into account.

.

I wasn't looking at any historical data, I was simply commenting on what I have personally seen and experienced. It's a frightening thing how many church bodies have allowed the discipleship/shepherding movement to take hold with their many man-made legalistic rules and regulations in direct contrast to what Paul was teaching in Galatians - they are adding to the Gospel of Christ, thus making it of none effect. Of course, I'm NOT putting headcoverings into that category but used in the context of controlling and abusive churches they become a symbol of subjection rather than submission - those women who do not go with the "program" are deemed to be less spiritually mature and in general, all women in such "church" situations are considered to be of far less value than the men. Christ came to give us freedom, not to bring us under law and bondage!

Again, let me make it perfectly clear that I believe that the wearing of a headcovering is a decision to be made as a matter of conscience, NOT a pulpit mandated "donning of the doily".

I don't know if I will ever come to the conviction of wearing a headcovering but I DO know that I will NEVER, EVER, do it because of a man-centred mandate from a pulpit!!!

 

[fredtgreco]

MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:

All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this public thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on both sides.

Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)

 

[BG]

Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".


Do you know where He stands on this issue?

Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.

Please put a link to the podcast on this thread. Thanks in advance.

 

[a mere housewife]

Tim asked about people who attend a church that requires headcovering: I grew up in a church where headcovering is required for worship and we still attend there and wear a hat. I don't agree with the requirement for membership and I believe/have witnessed that in many situations such requirements exist in an unhealthy atmosphere where the church is willing to overstep Scriptural bounds in its authority over the consciences of its members; but we love our church and we have a really great pastor and it is a small thing for us to comply with this (though it's an entirely different matter to ask/enforce compliance of others). A couple years ago we researched this for various reasons. I came to the conclusion that the 'praying and prophesying' in question are public acts, where a woman is in the place as Rev Winzer noted of speaking for God to an assembly, or for an assembly to God. Yet the very clearest thing about this kind of activity is that it is not to take place in an assembly with men present -- this is not referring to a normal aspect of congregational worship but to a special place where a woman speaks with more authority: so the point being made about the authority in the structure is even more clear.

If I were (though I don't have the adrenaline to do such -- I almost failed speech class) to address a ladies' meeting for instance at a baby shower, or to teach children etc., in a public setting, I would wear a hat to demonstrate that even though I am praying/teaching in a position of authority, I am doing so in the proper realm and not trying to escape from but trying to operate under the authority structure of men in the church. Considering how this verse has been taken in vastly different ways by people in the reformed tradition (and yes many representations of reformers have them with their heads covered: this is puzzling to me) I explain my views when asked -in other words am not going to defend this-but am uncomfortable pushing them further; my conscience is satisfied with this, and I am in subjection to my husband in believing it. I am grateful for Colleen and others who might hold a different position but who can say the same.

 

[ww]

MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:

All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this public thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on both sides.

Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)

Good Counsel Fred! My Wife was such a visitor to this discussion. However she is a Reformed believer and was able to get clarification of the different positions from me while reading it.

 

[Jon 316]

MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:

All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this public thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on both sides.

Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)

With all due respect would it not be fairer to delete the posts of the offending parties and penalise them individualy?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Actually, Heidi, I think you hit on some very good points.

 

[BG]

Sproul Page 347 Now That's a Good Question

"If you go to my Presbyterian church this Sunday, you'll see two women wearing hats. One is a woman from Holland who is dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and the other one is my wife because we are persuaded that that biblical mandate is still in effect"



Page 348

" I'm persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect..."


I have also heard this on tape also.

 

[he beholds]

Quote :1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).

My responses will interweave the quote I am responding to. My understanding is that Calvin always tipped his hat, or took it off as a sign he could take off the hat as he began worship, but due to the cold weather and for health he put it back on. Now maybe you would say he should have sacrificed more and kept it off all during the preaching and praying, but at least he made sure the sign was made publically

2)The Scots also had the men wearing the head coverings, ie: hats.


Again we are speaking of in public worship only. A hat any other time is fine as is uncovered hair for a woman. As it says, covered when she is praying or prophesying, thus in distinction from when she is not. This is not that complicated if one is truly open to the truth. The fact some did not always keep it has no bearing on waht scripture teaches.
Again, no one answered my question, why would women be so opposed to this practice? why would it all of a sudden drop out of most cultures when it had obviously been there for more than 2000 years as, yes the Jews and other middle easterners wore coverings as they do to this day, as did most cultures up to the recent decades; we only started stopping in the 1960s in the US

3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.

Wy don't you see it in the OT? Who do you think Paul was talking about when he said doesn't even nature teach you. This was the normal practice of most all

4) In the OT, high priests wore coverings.

yes and te few who took a nazarite vow didn't cut their hair either so what? These are not the norm

5) People say it was a creation ordinance, however, when Adam and Eve were naked, do they think she had her head covered? If so, why is this not mentioned? And what was it? Fig leaves?

Come on is this really exegeting and interpreting scripture, or just surmisigs and self desires? Creation ordinance means the reason Paul gave was because of the order established in creation, woman made form and for man; not because they were naked in. And 1. that was before the fall. 2. After the fall God covered them, and she evenually wore a head covering in prayer though not when picking forbidden fruit and other naked activities. The covering was for public worship, Paul is teaching how to behave in church. Not anywhere else. So why would you raise the issue of eve in the garden?? And if not her, certainly he jewish women as revelation unfolded with more clarity in time

THIS is not me surmising things for my own desires, but trying to understand them. Can people stop accusing me of that? I apologize for bothering you with my questions.
So Eve wore a headcovering after the fall? I didn't know that and I don't remember reading that.

But, the one thing that I get stuck on is I cannot see Paul binding women's consciences to a cultural norm. And if I was in Corinth and heard this letter, I most certainly would have felt obligated to wear a covering.

Ok now this is just sad. Binding conscience?? Really? Does God bind our conscience when he says we can't lie or can't murder? Binding someone's conscience would only be when a human tells them they must follow rules God has not instructed. But here we are being told what God does command. Else Paul would be binding consciences and guilty of what he accused the Pharisees and judaizers of adding to God's law. So he is not doing that, he is giving us God's will or throw out the whole bible.
So when God gives a command in his word, it is supposed to bind our conscience to it.
And it didn't matter what the corinthian culture was. Theirs was to have temple prostitutes, and worship and unknown god.
Christ is a counter culture. He commnads us to go against culture where they go against His law.

Was that necessary?
This was a pro-headcovering question. Please re-read it. I was saying that I know that Paul would not bind our consciences.

Unless, in the Corinthian culture the only way to signify publicly that you were under your husband's authority was to have your head covered. Paul could want the women to acknowledge before the world that they are under the authority of their husbands. So, I think the principle would apply today and a woman would be required biblically to be visibly under her husband's authority, and use a means to display that, if there were such a visible custom. To clarify, I think if today the culture somehow agreed that a submissive woman would do X, a Christian woman would be prudent to also do X.

Concluding: God did know the future, so He knew about rings and if He wanted the ring on her finger and not his, or both or whatever He would have said that. He said cover the head and wear long hair. Is this like such a hard thing to do? What if we have some doubt about it, isn't God worth just doing it anyway to be sure?
Why rebel? Why seek to have your liberty of conscience uninfringed as if the love and enjoyment of all we can in this world was the more important thing for us? Why not be willing to give up such small liberties for the Lord? And if a man cannot control his wife in such a small thing and she will not submit to this, how will they ever in the larger things, the stronger temptations and lusts of the world?
In his Service[/QUOTE]
You do not know me. I am not in rebellion. My husband doesn't need to control me, I'm not a wild animal. I respect and try to do anything my husband asks. However, just because we have not been convicted of wearing a headcovering, like most in the Church today, our marriage is not doomed and I am submissive. I think the way to deal with doubt and questions is to seek answers, rather than "do it to be sure." I'd rather do something in faith, than in law. For I do think if I don't believe that something is commanded or right, obeying it will not be credited to me as righteousness.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Jessi, you are right. Paul is not binding conscience to anything except that which Gd has ordained (as stated at the beginning at the start of the chapter before he heads into headcoverings and communion). Also to be noted is that the chapter doesn't just bring up these two issues (communion and headship), but deals with how they are to be handled.

On Eve, it is a creation principle. Meaning headship is. However, after the fall God clothed them. It is logical, from historical and cultural studies, to believe that Eve also wore a covering on her head. Mayhap, not ALL the time. Mayhap, not in the way that she would just fall through the floor of embarrassment if she didn't have it on for some reason. But it's logical to believe that she did have one


I will say that I believe Jessi is coming at this with a good heart. She wants to UNDERSTAND it, not just slap one on because someone else said she should. In truth, there are too many churches out there that say people (men and women) should do this, that, and the other, because THEY (the minister) says so and claims it's in the Scriptures and takes any questioning of it as rebellion rather than trying to help another UNDERSTAND. I felt the same way about it. I felt the same way about Reformed Theology. I felt the same way about birth control and holidays. Prove it to me, let me study it, let me understand it. Also we must presume that she IS discussing these things with her husband. And if her husband told her not to? No accusations should be made against her character.

 

[Curt]

MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:

All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person.

I appreciate Fred's gentle admonition. I haven't posted on this thread, but I have followed it and enjoyed most of the argumentation. There is no better place to find polemics than among Reformed brethren. Sometimes passions get out of hand.

If we remember that, but still make the points that are important to us, this will continue to be the best theological discussion board on the web.

Thank you Al Gore!

 

[a mere housewife]

Concluding: God did know the future, so He knew about rings and if He wanted the ring on her finger and not his, or both or whatever He would have said that. He said cover the head and wear long hair. Is this like such a hard thing to do? What if we have some doubt about it, isn't God worth just doing it anyway to be sure?
Why rebel? Why seek to have your liberty of conscience uninfringed as if the love and enjoyment of all we can in this world was the more important thing for us? Why not be willing to give up such small liberties for the Lord? And if a man cannot control his wife in such a small thing and she will not submit to this, how will they ever in the larger things, the stronger temptations and lusts of the world?
In his Service

Just wanted to add re: this argument that it imports one's own doubts into the consciences of others who may have a clear conscience in their position given their understanding of Scripture. I have seen such arguments used to urge that we not drink alcohol, that women not wear slacks, makeup, etc. -- at some point Paul does say that liberty is worth fighting for (stand fast therefore) and exhorts us not to judge one another's consciences by our own. I think the attitude described is admirable and we are certainly instructed not to sin against our conscience; but we are also instructed to have our conscience subject to the word of God and to say that others who must do the exact same things I do or they don't have that attitude/subjection does seem uncharitable to that person esp given the differing views on this subject in the reformed tradition.

I had a question (not rhetorical, sincerely wondering) I was wondering if what is said about contention has to do with contention being more against the spirit of what is being taught about the church than a woman who is in subjection to her husband and her elders etc, but has a different conviction on the use of the symbol?

 

[moral necessity]

I always thought a head covering was to cover the entire head, not just the top portion of it. How does one justify that? A cover is supposed to make something become not visible. Even with a hat or typical "head covering" on, I can still see the head......so, how is that a true covering? Just wondering.

 

[Jon 316]

MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:

All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this public thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on both sides.

Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)

With all due respect would it not be fairer to delete the posts of the offending parties and penalise them individualy?

That's precisely what he said. He would delete the whole post (of the offender), not the whole thread.

I was refering to this statement

Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

 

[fredtgreco]

With all due respect would it not be fairer to delete the posts of the offending parties and penalise them individualy?

That's precisely what he said. He would delete the whole post (of the offender), not the whole thread.

I was refering to this statement

Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

I meant what I said, and I know what I am doing. I have been moderating/administrating this board for more than 6 years. What I said was intentional.

 

[Theognome]

That's precisely what he said. He would delete the whole post (of the offender), not the whole thread.

I was refering to this statement

Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

I meant what I said, and I know what I am doing. I have been moderating/administrating this board for more than 6 years. What I said was intentional.

You see, Fred is the head of covering this thread.

*insert rimshot here*

Theognome

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Interesting thread! Thanks to everyone who has shared their view on this topic.

I will quickly jump and in and assert my minority view. I agree with Craig and Sarah that the issue is more about headship than a physical covering. I will also insert the dreaded word "culture" here because in Greece at the time all women wore head coverings, and often veils, as a sign of submission to their husbands. I think Paul's point is that women are to submit in the church just as they submit in the Greek culture. In other words, Paul is saying not to use their liberty as a "cloak for vice" as he says in Romans: women may not be under the oppressive Greek culture in the church, but they should still submit to their husbands and church leadership as God-ordained authority. So rather than being a general command to all women at all times to wear a covering, Paul is simply exhorting the Corinthian women to submit to the headship of their church and husbands.

And yes, I know I disagree with Calvin and Sproul (and others) on this. But as Sproul himself said, Calvin was only right 80% of the time...

 

[Wannabee]

Heh, I wonder what percent of the time Sproul is right. If he's right 90% of the time, perhaps his comment on Calvin was in the 10%.

Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end? Doggonit Mason, I thought we agreed on everything except eschatology and baptism.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Heh, I wonder what percent of the time Sproul is right. If he's right 90% of the time, perhaps his comment on Calvin was in the 10%.

Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end? Doggonit Mason, I thought we agreed on everything except eschatology and baptism.

Wait, I think we do agree...your wife doesn't cover, does she?

 

[Wannabee]

No, actually she doesn't. We almost agree. I lean toward covering during prayer and teaching. But I have not quite landed, and our church doesn't. But I am wary of the cultural understanding of Paul's command here.

 

[Skyler]

I will quickly jump and in and assert my minority view. I agree with Craig and Sarah that the issue is more about headship than a physical covering. I will also insert the dreaded word "culture" here because in Greece at the time all women wore head coverings, and often veils, as a sign of submission to their husbands. I think Paul's point is that women are to submit in the church just as they submit in the Greek culture. In other words, Paul is saying not to use their liberty as a "cloak for vice" as he says in Romans: women may not be under the oppressive Greek culture in the church, but they should still submit to their husbands and church leadership as God-ordained authority. So rather than being a general command to all women at all times to wear a covering, Paul is simply exhorting the Corinthian women to submit to the headship of their church and husbands.

I don't think the cultural argument is quite sound. For one thing, it has relatively recent origins; any doctrine which falls into that category is immediately suspect. It is akin to saying that the church never really understood what Paul said until these modern times.

Secondly, I don't think there is any justification for this position scripturally. I'm not as familiar with the Bible as many(most?) on this board, but I don't think I've ever seen a passage with a command as explicit as "she should cover her head" that wasn't intended to be taken seriously.

Regards,

 

[LadyFlynt]

Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end?

hmm...bread and wine vs cheezits and coke

 

[SueS]

Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end?

hmm...bread and wine vs cheezits and coke

You may have said this in jest, but the man in charge of my former church told us about the time when the Southern church he was attending celebrated communion with grape Nehi and moon pies. He had no problem with it....said it was cultural!

 

[calgal]

Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end?

hmm...bread and wine vs cheezits and coke

You may have said this in jest, but the man in charge of my former church told us about the time when the Southern church he was attending celebrated communion with grape Nehi and moon pies. He had no problem with it....said it was cultural!

That is NASTY! Question: is it appropriate to serve communion using grape juice? Not talking padeocommunion but adults served bread and grape juice. That is common (wine is controversial when there are recovering alcoholics in the congregation).

 

[SpokenFor]

OK..I finally gave up reading every post when I hit the top of this page! I do not wish to enter a formal argument, and will simply say that I have recently been convinced that headcovering is very much for today.

God had put a lot of "pro" arguments blogs/websites/PB threads in front of me for quite a while before I finally submitted. What it boiled down to -for me- was pride. My hair was indeed my "glory" and I didn't want to cover that and let Christ's glory shine through. Eventually, though, the Holy Spirit so convicted me that I actually bought a (horrid) scarf at Target on my way to church one Sunday and sneaked it up over my head during prayer times. It felt wonderful. It was so freeing to finally be obedient in that area.

I now cover pretty much all the time. I do not wear a "doily" or "hanky" and would never wear a baseball cap that proclaims the glory of some worldly sports team. Much like the top photo that Lady Flynt posted a few pages back, I wear pretty scarves. I am less shy about it, although I do get some eye rolls and snarky comments. I find it easier to wear the covering all day than to put it on and take if off.

I have posted my reasons for wearing one both in the Tea Parlor on the Headcovering Support thread and on Facebooks "Headcovering Christians" group page.

Whitway: if your wife is wanting to see the blessing that comes with wearing a headcovering... I get mine at thrift stores ($1-$2) and ebay. I wear both square and long rectangular ones for a variety in tying. Currently I have silk/rayon ones and recently ordered some pretty cotton square ones for summer. I also like the ones on Headcoverings

 

[OPC'n]

Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".


Do you know where He stands on this issue?

Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.

Please put a link to the podcast on this thread. Thanks in advance.

I have over 700 of his podcast and really don't want to go find it. If I do happen to find it I will tell you the name of it, but of course couldn't link you to it since it's on my computer. I have found some things he has said in that book, "Now That's a Good Question" is different from what he now says. For example, in that book he says one thing about people having pictures of Christ and then says another thing in one of his podcast. I don't know how old that book is or the podcast, but clearly is changes his mind on different issues. You certainly do not have to believe me since I cannot find that podcast...could but I would have to listen to many many of them. On that podcast he stated he wanted to clear up two rumors: on was the head covering and the other was something on golf. Here is what he says on the matter in his Reformation Study Bible:

the head The significance of this metaphor has long been debated by scholars it may indicate leadership and authority, or source in origin. The evidence from Greek literature is ambiguous, and the present context does not resolve the problem. The two ideas should probably not be regarded as excluding each other. In two other contexts where Paul speaks of Christ as head (Eph 4:15; Col. 2:19) the notion of "source" maybe present. (cf. v8). Elsewhere Paul uses the metaphor with explicit reference to authority or submission. (Eph 1:22; 5:23, 24; Col 1:18; 2:10). Here the stress probably falls on authority rather than source (cf. v10).

his head covered What little evidence that exist seems to indicate that, with few exceptions, men in the first century left their heads uncovered while worshipping. The Jewish custom of men covering their heads at prayer probably does not go back to the NT period.

dishonors his head Probably a reference to Christ as the head (v7). Neither the Bible nor other documents explain why such a practice would dishonor Christ (cf. v10 note).

her head uncovered Given the contrast with the previous verse, this comment suggests that women in the first century normally worshipped with a head covering. Some scholars think that Paul refers to a particular hair style (in Num 5:18, loosening a woman's hair is part of the test for an unfaithful wife). See note on v15.

the same as if her head were shaven In verse six, shaving a woman's head is compared to having the hair cut short, presumably like a man's. It appears then that Paul is opposing a practice that tended to obliterate the distinction between the sexes. Possibly the controversy reflects the idea of some Corinthians that they had achieved perfection and were no longer subject to the normal rules. (Introduction: Date and Occasion).

woman is the glory of man See "The Image of God" at Gen 1:27.

woman for man See "Body and Soul, Male and Female" at Gen 2:7.

because of the angels Many interpretations of this phrase have been suggested, but they are all speculative. Paul's argument is closely tied to a specific historical situation, and we should be cautious about applying all its details universally (vv. 4, 16 notes).

11:11, 12 These verses appear to be a qualification of the previous comments. With specific reference to our relationship "in the Lord," men and women are mutually dependent, since we are one in Him (Gal 3:28).

nature Interpreters differ about the meaning of this term. Some believe it refers to the created order. Others argue the apostle is here appealing to the common practices of his day.

for a covering Paul may mean that since the woman's long hair serves as a covering, it is equally appropriate for her to wear a veil. Some argue that the hair is "in place of" a covering. This would support the view that Paul refers not to veils but a particular hair style (v. 5 note).

we have no such practice Paul does not use exactly this kind of argument elsewhere in any of his letters. Such a conclusion to a difficult passage may give some support to the view that the apostle was not prescribing permanent forms of worship, but dealing with questions of cultural appropriateness. To be sure, such questions have theological implications (v5 note).
__________________

 

[SpokenFor]

You may have said this in jest, but the man in charge of my former church told us about the time when the Southern church he was attending celebrated communion with grape Nehi and moon pies. He had no problem with it....said it was cultural!

Church I used to attend used Bugles one Sunday. This was a charismatic church that like to blow rams horns and wave flags during service.

That being said, however, when I was on a missions trip once, the small group of us were having a great time fellowship, praying and worshipping God together and we wanted to share the Lord's Supper together. The only things we could find were potato chips and apple juice. I think God blessed it.

 

[Jon 316]

I was wondering if those who are for and those who are against could some up their arguments in bullet points?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

No, actually she doesn't. We almost agree. I lean toward covering during prayer and teaching. But I have not quite landed, and our church doesn't. But I am wary of the cultural understanding of Paul's command here.

Right, I agree that we have to be very careful when discussing specific cultural considerations of the Bible - it would be very wrong to brush off inconvenient mandates as mere cultural items.

However, cultural allusions are found throughout the Bible, especially the New Testament. Paul and Peter both exhort women not to wear gold and braid their hair - is a woman who ever wears gold jewelry or braids their hair sinful? I don't think so, because the warning is against pre-occupation with external appearance rather than honor God first with the heart. Likewise, no one today asks us to carry their things a mile the way they did in Roman-occupied Judea.

So I agree Pastor Johnson, extreme care must be taken when considering culture in the Bible. But it is still a valid concept in determining the overall meaning of the passage.